Sunday, February 19, 2017

About 'Is Racism an Environmental Threat?' (Polity, 2017)

The liars of global
warming and the liars of Islamophobia were bound to meet,
and they have met in youAnonymous
hate mail

A couple of friends have
kindly offered me a space to write something that helps introduce 'Is Racism an Environmental Threat?' (IRET?). Vijay Prashad’s Will The Flower
Slip Through The Asphalt (LeftWord Books, 2017) has been one of such
spaces. Olivia Rutazibwa’s blog Rethinking Francophone Africa is another. Polity
Press has also asked me to write a couple of paragraphs to introduce the book on
their blog.

If there is proof needed
that writing is always an artificial suspension of an analytical process that
can go on forever here it is. As I began writing these introductory notes, I
found myself too often thinking about what I wished I had written, who I wished
I had quoted and what I wished I had emphasized, just as much as about what I
have already written, quoted and emphasized.

I will highlight two very
general considerations animating the book. What I have just said above means
that these considerations are at the same time of the order of the ‘already in
the book’, and of the order of the ‘I wish I had emphasized this more in the
book’.

Since my very first book (White Nation 1998) I have been conjuring
analyses of human-animal relations of domestication as a way of helping clarify
the nature of certain inter-human relations of domination and exploitation.
While I have found it useful, I have also felt that this intellectual instrumentalisation
of animal misery to understand human misery was not ethically satisfactory. It
simply forefronted human misery, and paid scant attention to the domination and
exploitation of animals as a subject in its own right. To say ‘the manager of
this sweatshop works the Vietnamese women as if they were mules’ might help us
get a sense of the intensity of exploitation to which the Vietnamese women are
subjected, but it often demonstrates that, beside their analogical value, we
couldn’t care less about what is happening to the mules. IRET? is a step in the direction of caring about what is happening
to the mules. That’s the first broad consideration. The second consideration
involves an attempt to define the moment where the other, human or natural,
moves from being ‘a nuisance in my space’, a problematic object in my
environment, to something that turns my whole space into a nuisance and
transforms my whole environment into a problem.

An ecological crisis is by
definition something all-encompassing. It relates to everything located within
it from the very moment it becomes categorised as an ecological crisis. This is
why we also refer to it as ‘environmental’. When a crisis is deemed
“environmental” it is no longer a crisis in a specific relationship that one
can have with a particular x or y. It becomes a crisis of the very environment,
or milieu, in which we can have relationships to x or y. Take for example a
garbage-collection crisis that has been taking place in Lebanon since 2015. It
began as a breakdown in the garbage disposal system due to its complex
entanglement with the logic of economic and political sectarian competition in
the country. As people began to dispose of their rubbish anywhere they could,
the garbage started fouling the already polluted environment. Soon the street
smells, the ugly appearance of sea and mountain vistas, the contaminated
rivers, permeated everything, causing inconveniences, discomfort and disease.
“Garbage disposal” was no longer an unmanageable relation to garbage; it became
constitutive of the entire social atmosphere. It affected the way people
worked, their mood, where children played, what could be eaten and where one
could eat, how and where one could exercise, and more.

It is a similar
all-encompassing quality that defines the “environmental crisis” we are facing
globally today. Because of this, it is always possible to demonstrate that any
social phenomenon is related to the environmental crisis. From such a
perspective, however, we cannot tell if there is a difference between the
relation between ecological crisis and racism and the relationship between the
environmental crisis and the fluctuations of the stock exchange. In both set of
relations we can imagine processes independent from each other coming to
intersect, precisely because of the all-encompassing nature of the
environmental crisis. The relation between the two is here imagined as external
and conjunctural. What characterizes IRET? is the search for a different,
internal, and far more intimate relation between racism and the ecological. It
is argued that the two are never independent of each other to begin with. Their
commonality and their interaction is not conjunctural but part of their very
nature.

Some time ago now, I was
struck by the uncanny resemblance in the language used by the Australian
government when it was dealing with refugee boats heading towards the
Australian coast and the language used to refer to oceanic waste. More
precisely, the way the government spoke of the people smugglers who ‘dumped’
refugees in the ocean was very similar to the language used to speak of people
illegally dumping toxic waste. What is imagined in both cases is, first, a
social process happening outside Australia and producing a useless and harmful
by-product, and, second, someone illegally attempting to force Australia as a
nation to deal with this harmful by-product for which it has no usage, and
against the national will and interest. Waste, unrecyclable, ungovernable, un-incompassable
and toxic; All these classificatory names and adjectives and the images
associated to them are important in helping us understand what is happening in
the case of refugees and in the case of oceanic waste.

They are important for
understanding the way we experience the ecological crisis generally and global
warming in particular. The toxic gases and chemicals that are constitutive of
our physical environment and that we consider partially responsible for the
ecological crisis are primarily waste. That is, they are the by-products of a
process of production and consumption. They are also unrecyclable waste which is a category relative to a specific
social arrangement and technological knowhow: what is unrecyclable today might
not be tomorrow thanks to some technological innovation or within different
social relations. Still some waste proves itself to be durably unrecyclable
marking the limitations of a society’s technical capacities. But what
constitutes the ecological crisis is not just the existence of unrecyclable
waste. As important is the experience of this un-recyclable waste as something
that is going out of control, as something ungovernable: we have no way of
dealing with it. It is also not just ungovernable but also un-incompassable. This
concept (which has it roots in the work of Louis Dumont) is crucial. There are
things we consider ungovernable but that remain containable, that is, they
remain ungovernable within the frames of governability that are set by a given
governmental process and power. As such they do not radically challenge the
position of the governmental subjects. There are however ungovernable objects
that become so ungovernable in scale that they become, intellectually and
physically, impossible to encompass even as governmental problems: they cross
governmental boundaries (such as national borders) and instead of us
encompassing them they start to encompass us. This is, as noted above, when we
move from a governmental crisis to an environmental crisis, from having an
object being out of control within our milieu to that object diffusing itself
in such a way such that the entire milieu in which we exist becomes experienced
as out of control. Finally, even unrecyclable, ungovernable and un-encompassable
waste is not enough to define an environmental crisis without the last
classification: toxic, that is, harmful. The ecological crisis is not only the
experience of something useless (waste) from which we cannot extract any more
value (unrecyclable), becoming both ungovernable and un-incompassable.
Importantly this ungovernable and un-incompassable waste is also considered by
us as harmful: it damages us as individuals and as collectives. It damages our
social relations and our practices. It can do so because it damages the very
milieu in which these are constituted.

What is striking today is
that each and every one of these classifications and their associated imaginary
can also be used to understand the way ‘the Muslim refugee’ is experienced in
the West. That is, these classifications are at the very heart of what we call
Islamophobia. The Muslim refugee, particularly the Syrian refugee today, is
first and foremost perceived as waste. It is the refuse, the by-product of wars
or of social transformations that uproot people from their land and their
societies without these societies having the means of re-integrating them. Just
as importantly, the Muslim refugee today is unrecyclable: this, in a way, is
one of the crucial differences between the classification of refugees today and
their classification during and immediately following WWII. In the latter case
refugees were also seen as the refuse and the waste produced by war and social
transformations, but, because of its expanding economies, the West was largely
convinced by refugee advocates and industrialists to look at them largely as
recyclable: it could make new usage of them. This is not the case with the
refugees of today: thanks largely to its shrinking economies the West sees them
as unrecyclable waste.

At the same time, this
unrecyclable waste is going out of control, it is perceived as unmanageable, as
ungovernable, it does not stay put. Despite the conspiracy theory imaginary
that often accompany them, wars such as in Iraq and Syria are beyond control. More
importantly, they are increasingly becoming perceived as un-incompassable.
Their effect whether in the form of the spread of Islamicist terror
organizations or the spread of refugees cannot be contained to specific
localities. The Muslim others are experienced as a ubiquitous presence. S/he is
everywhere. They are growing locally while also traversing and overflowing
national borders. They do so in such a way that they are creating anxieties in
the Western governmental subjects concerning their very capacity to be
sovereign governmental subjects. Un-incompassibility is perhaps more than
anything else the trigger of the kind of phobic anxieties from which the
Western Extreme Right feeds. It triggers fantasies of reverse colonisation: fictional
stories where the populations that have traditionally been colonised by the
West are feared of becoming themselves the colonisers of Western populations.
Anything, from the deadly but pathetic figure of the ‘Islamic terrorist’ to the
non-assimilating ‘Halal meat eating’ Muslim, feeds the spectre of Muslim
domination. This takes us to the final classification: the toxicity and harmfulness
of the Muslim other: the Muslim’s mere presence is seen as having a negative
impact on the West (conceived as anything but Muslim) and as able to potentially
destroy it.

The Muslim then like a
fluorocarbon gas is an unrecyclable, ungovernable, un-incompassable, toxic
waste. It is not an object that is just mildly polluting certain social spaces
within the modern social environment but an active subject has diffused itself
throughout the planet and is responsible for wholescale global social crisis.

To be clear, this
classificatory similarity is not what IRET? is about. Rather, noting and detailing the similarity is the
starting point. The book argues that the classifications and the practices that
constitute colonial racism and the practices that have generated the
destruction of the natural environment are mutually self-reinforcing because
they share a common root: they have a common mode of existence – a manner in
which we humans are inserted, and deploy ourselves, in the world – that works
as their generative principle. This is what is referred to in the book as
‘generalised domestication’. The book aims to explore this generalised
domestication in so far as it constitutes a way of inhabiting the social and
natural world. It analyses the practices and classifications that constitute
its elementary structure. Last but not least, it explores the way this
structure is articulated to and came to constitute the core of mono-realist
capitalist modernity, and how it continues to propel the always patriarchal,
always racist, always speciesist drive to colonise the world that characterizes
the modernist capitalist project.

1 comment:

You are correct, the amount of destruction we have created in this world can be attributed to almost anything if you try hard enough. However, I understand the racism being made here is quite truthful. We have heard of refugees being 'dumped' and other horrible language to describe human beings. Not sure when it will stop!